I say that capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labour. Slave labour was abolished in America, England, Africa and India so they needed to find another location such as Russia and China so that the first world countries could get cheap labour to produce their goods.

According to Edward Griffin's book - The Creature from Jekyll Island - communism was initiated by capitalists so that they would have a cheap source of labour. The Red Cross was used as a cover so that agents could distribute money, weapons and propaganda to prisoners. Jacob Schiff was head of the New York investment firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co. He was one of the principal backers of the Bolshevik revolution and personally financed Trotsky's trip from New York to Russia.

During the two years of war with Japan thousands of Russian soldiers and sailors were taken as prisoners. Sources outside of Russia, which were hostile to the Tsarist regime, paid for the printing of Marxist propaganda and had it delivered to the prison camps. Russian-speaking revolutionaries were trained in New York and sent to distribute the pamphlets among the prisoners and to indoctrinate them into rebellion against their own government. When the war was ended, these officers and enlisted men returned home to become virtual seeds of treason against the Tsar. They were to play a major role a few years later in creating mutiny among the military during the Communist takeover of Russia.

Your claim is: "capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labor."

Nothing you have stated saying anything that supports either, "capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries" or " for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labor.".

Your only evidence is: "According to Edward Griffin's book - The Creature from Jekyll Island". - Because Americans supported the overthrow of Tsarist Russia. This is a Non sequitur.

Your own link asserts, "It has been claimed that his expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff. There is no documentation to substantiate that claim, but the circumstantial evidence does point to a wealthy donor in New York. "

Setting aside the fact that you have not even addressed your primary assertions, let me explain this historical context of what you've been reading.

Even if it were true Jacob Schiff supported efforts to overthrow Tsarist Russia. This is a Non sequitur. This has nothing to do with Capitalism, for all you know Schiff might be a communist himself.(A position many jewish people held in the early 20th century) Not only are you overlooking the fact that Schiff was German, and it was Germany's plan to destabilize Russia as a military tactic, but you also don't know that the majority of Americans at that time supported the overthrow of Tsarist Russia, including notable Americans like Mark Twain. The belief by many Americans at the time was that the russian people were being repressed by the Tsar(which is true), and that the Russian people should rise up and overthrow their oppressors like we Americans did to the British. (Not much different than the view that was recently held by Americans in regard to Hussein.)

Not only is their not evidence for your example, but if their was it would be a Non sequitur.

Even if you managed to provide evidence of this guy and others that related directly to "capitalists wanting to create communism for slave markets", it not only would go against the principles of Capitalism, but would not be representative of a 'social system' in the first place.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Not a person.

I will finish with that. I'm sure I will have plenty of opportunity to discuss the absolute economic impossibly of your premise.

The reason for the formation of cities is because the land of the peasants had been confiscated by the ruling classes. This was the primary cause that initiated a capitalist system. Communism is just an extreme form of capitalism. Communism is a capitalist trick to fool the people into an apparent utopian paradise which really turns out to be a capitalist hell hole.

Communist countries make cheap products for first world countries using slave labour. Whether this came about by accident or was manipulated by design is irrelevant. I have clearly demonstrated that it was money from rich capitalists that kick started the revolution in the Russian Revolution. Whether these people who invested this money were German, American or Jews is irrelevant. All I have to prove is that they were rich capitalists.

Communists countries have no freedom of speech, no incentive to innovate, reduced prosperity and are punished for not obeying orders and instructions. These deplorable conditions are what every capitalist dreams of as being the ideal environment for making money. This is where most, so called 'capitalists countries' are heading anyway. The communist countries are just early prototypes of what every capitalist really wants the world to be like.

If you observe current trends you will notice that the workers have increasingly more work hours and less rights as time progresses. Thus, the capitalist system is slowly heading towards their communist ideal, which is slave labour and no rights for workers.

Note - Multiculturalism is a means of causing division and malice in the work environment. Its the old Roman rule of divide and conquer. The capitalists are always trying to find ways to undermine the rights of their workers. Communism is the perfect vehicle for achieving this goal.

(A)"Communism is a capitalist concept-capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labour."

The ONLY evidence you put forth was a conspiracy theory about some guy named Jacob Schiff, and a link about Jacob Schiff which even stated that "It has been claimed that his expenses were paid by Jacob Schiff. There is no documentation to substantiate that claim, but the circumstantial evidence does point to a wealthy donor in New York."

Any other reverse you've made are only in the terms of "They".

Who's "They"?

One of the glaring anti-conceptual premises you seem to be operation under is the idea that the term 'Capitalist' denotes a person with money. Since it obviously doesn't, since there are obviously essential differences between a wealthy king, a wealthy pope, and a wealthy entrepreneur-as well as the inclusion of an individual who is a capitalist and also poor... This premise bears no relation to reality.

Since it is impossible to individually address the countless baseless and unintelligible statements you've made in relation to Capitalism and communism, I shall define what we are talking about, and explain to you… History… specifically the philosophical and political history of the two ideas.

Basic definitions:

(*) Communism, a system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

(*) Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

It would be enough to win this whole debate simply to point out that the term and concept 'Communism' originated in France and later emerged as a political doctrine.

Basic History:

Both Communism and Capitalism emerged out of the enlightenment era thinkers and emerged in different places, by entirely different philosophies, by different people and materialized very differently.

Capitalism emerged as a political doctrine in the US and England, during the time of the American revolution, and the end of Mercantilism, with it's major philosophical influences being from Adam Smith(economic thought), John Stuart Mill(Utilitarian thought), & John Locke(Natural Rights thought), which were picked up by later British thinkers and the American founding fathers.

Communism emerged as a political doctrine following Rousseau, the upheaval of the French Revolution, and later French thinkers with it's major philosophical influences being from Immanuel Kant, Hegel, both of which transferring to Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels.

The effect of the philosophical and political beliefs of the "Rights of Man"(individual rights) that emerged from the English philosophers and the right to one's "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" by the American founding fathers had resulted in Britain abandoning mercantilism in 1840 and committing its economy to free trade, with few barriers or tariffs. (Economic liberalization). The same process took place for the US in the 1860s, and heavily took off with the end of the Civil war. Capitalism's time had come, and it was ushered in by the US and the UK. Capitalism cannot work with slave labor. It was the agrarian, feudal South that maintained slavery. It was the industrial, capitalistic North that wiped it out—as capitalism wiped out slavery and serfdom in the whole civilized world of the nineteenth century.

What resulted was an era of innovation, wealth creation, and prosperity for all people the likes of which had never been witnessed in all of human history.

The effect of the philosophical and political beliefs of Rousseau emerged into the slogan "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" which culminated Robespierre's reign of terror, and the chaos that lead to Napoléon Bonaparte's bleeding of Europe, while the "self-abnegation, self-sacrifice, and duty" that emerged from the German philosophers added the moral backing to the later formulations of communism, socialism, and fascism alike.

Opposing principles:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights.

(1)"The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control."

Communism, is a social system based on collectivism and an individual's subjugation to the state.

(2) "Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group. Whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group , and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism."

In Practice:

Capitalism's individual rights are practiced by leaving men free to think, act, and keep the products of their thought and action. - IE, Freedom.

Communism's collectivism is practiced by the only means it can be practiced, by the use of phisical force, this takes the form of Statism-the political expression of collectivism, which holds that man’s life and work belong to the state—to society, to the group, the gang, the race, the nation—and that the state may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good.

In Summery:

Not only have you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, but I believe I have successfully proven that "Communism is NOT a Capitalist concept." by demonstrating that not only did the concept emerge from completely separate locations, but also by separate people, with opposing philosophies and histories.

Quote - 'Not only have you failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, but I believe I have successfully proved that "Communism is NOT a Capitalist concept." by demonstrating that not only did the concept emerge from completely separate locations, but also by separate people, with opposing philosophies and histories'.

Reply - We have to ask, when was communism applied, not when was invented.

If you look of the time line of when these two systems were applied you find that capitalism came first and communism came much later. Communism arrived after World War I in 1917. This is what World War I was all about - the creation of a new world order.

During the larger part of human history, slavery has been a major factor in creating successful economies. Since the Abolition of Slavery Act 1833, countries around the world have been forced to stop slave trading. This has occurred sporadically, depending on particular countries.

During the 19th century the upper classes had grown accustomed to getting cheap mass produced items from India, China and Africa. When slavery was abolished, this supply of cheap items had suddenly stopped.
Thus, we can see that the world didn't have many slaves in the early part of the 20th century. Mechanization had taken up most of this deficit in the production line. Still, some products could not be produced by machine and still needed human labour to produce them. Thus, we have the creation of communist countries to provide this temporarily missing cheap labour force that could produce difficult and fiddly items at minimum prices.

The primary cases, American Express, Case and Vacuum Oil Company, offer a detailed insight into: motives for opening installations in Russia, daily operations, the effects of war, revolution and nationalization as well as business relations under the early Soviet government. The secondary case studies include, Citibank, Chase Manhattan Bank, Morgan Guaranty and New York Life Insurance Company in the financial group; Western Electric, Westinghouse Airbrake and General Electric in the manufacturing group; and United Shoe, Otis, Moline Plow, Kodak, Parke, Davis.

In China, the list of American companies that are manufacturing there is so large that I can only leave the reference -

Times change, the definition of capitalism and communism has changed since their first inception. My opponent has used a very old definitions of communism and capitalism which don't necessarily apply in the modern world.

Capitalism has since incorporated many communist concepts. Thus, we have the concept of political correctness, which is really a form of communism which is disguised or hidden. Thus, communism and capitalism are just a political vehicles to trick people into a new modern form of slavery. The ruling classes are always seeking new ways to undermine and destroy the cohesion of the working classes. They use political correctness in the form of feminism and multi-multiculturalism as tools of division which disrupt the unity and strength of the work force. Thus, once the unions had been destroyed and weakened, the ruling classes can reap the rewards by implementing unfair working conditions.

""Reply - We have to ask, when was communism applied, not when was invented.""

No, your argument was "I say that capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labour. "

"If you look of the time line of when these two systems were applied you find that capitalism came first and communism came much later. Communism arrived after World War I in 1917."

No, the Russian revolution has absolutly nothing to do with Capitalism. It was the monarchist German government that secretly arranged safe-passage for Vladimir Lenin to return to Moscow from Switzerland in 1917. Moreover, the Germans gave him financing through 1918 with the hope that Lenin would start a revolution that would cause Russia to withdraw its war with Germany during World War I. http://www.history.com...

From the moment he arrived in Russia, his progress in Russia was watched over by the Kaisserreich.

"For a period of 4 years Berlin supported the Bolsheviks and other revolutinaires in Russia with Money, Ammunition and weapons and thus supported the end of the Czar-monarchy. The Auswärtige Amt alone spend at least 26 Million Mark with a current value of about 75 Million Euro until the end of 1917"

At the time this article was published that was approximately 101,835,000 US$. The Russian Revolution Richard Pipes on page 411 claims (on basis of Bernstein) that it was more than 50 million marks in Gold.

"This is what World War I was all about - the creation of a new world order."

Where do you buy your drugs?

"During the larger part of human history, slavery has been a major factor in creating successful economies."

Really? Where are these successful economies?

I made a red dot which denotes the moment Britain became the first Empire in human history to abolish slavery.

So what changed after the red dot? Why didn't we see this massive wealth spike three thousand years ago when the Egyptian empire was 'built' on slavery? Why not two thousand years ago years when the Roman empire was 'built' on slavery? Why not a thousand years ago when the Islamic empires were 'built' on slavery?

Slavery is economically worthless. Two things ended slavery: 1. "The rights of man" for the enlightement. 2. Technological innovations created a demand for skilled laborers and created a fall in demand of unskilled labor.

"During the 19th century the upper classes had grown accustomed to getting cheap mass produced items from India, China and Africa. When slavery was abolished, this supply of cheap items had suddenly stopped."

You're just making crap up... India, China and Africa didn't produce ANYTHING in the 19th century. 2/3rds of all goods produced came from the UK and the US.

"Thus, we can see that the world didn't have many slaves in the early part of the 20th century. Mechanization had taken up most of this deficit in the production line. Still, some products could not be produced by machine and still needed human labour to produce them. Thus, we have the creation of communist countries to provide this temporarily missing cheap labour force that could produce difficult and fiddly items at minimum prices."

What the hell are you talking about?! For the entirety of Soviet Russia and communist china's history, they could not produce enough to feed their own people! And for the majority of the Cold War the US had strict economic sanctions on these countries.

"In China, the list of American companies that are manufacturing there is so large that I can only leave the reference -"

China's economy stopped the communist controls after Mao died! No American companies existed there when the economy was communist! They were slaves, and working on socalist farms as slaves for generations! After Mao died, the communist party began repealing some(not all) communist/socialist policies that left them all in subhuman misery, starvation, and death-Western companies moved in and set up factories. Yes, we are profiting from those factories. So are the people working in them. They have been offered a choice, work on the socialist farms, or take jobs in the factories...

And do you know which they choose? The factories. They choose to work there and many become plant managers and entrepreneurs themselves. Since the reforms, now, because of this horrible stuff you describe half a BILLION people have risen out of starvation and poverty and become middleclass and rich in china. We should be celebrating this. We should be demanding more of this. More freedom, more capitalism, so more people can rise up out of poverty.

"Times change, the definition of capitalism and communism has changed since their first inception. "

No, concepts don't change. A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are. Counties, coultures, and governments change.

Pro's position was ""I say that capitalists came up with the idea of creating communist countries for the purpose of creating a hidden supply of slave labour. ""

Not only has he failed to provide any evidence whatsoever, and presented nothing but crackpot conspiricy theories that go against all of established history but I believe I have successfully proved that "Communism is NOT a Capitalist concept." by demonstrating that not only did the concept emerge from completely separate locations, but also by separate people, with opposing philosophies and histories', and put into power by themselves and aid from ww1 Germany.

I was going to write more on the economic impossibility of Pro's claims... But the burden of proof was never on me in the first place, and if you're like me, you're done with this debate.